OK, this has now officially gone well into the ridiculous (I'm using a fair bit of energy to stop myself from using a much stronger word).
The fact of the matter is, this argument over the licence is pointless because no one can nor should win it, because it's the wrong argument. There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it will be included. This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability to add this support externally SHOULD. Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Arguments that basically 'appropriate' the OS under excuse of the added support for a platform, in order to leverage a specific model of code distribution are flawed because they are based on a notion that platform support can only and therefore must be an integral part of the OS and should be distributed as one lump binary (or source). * Problem: special platforms like emulators that may have parts of the OS rewritten as native code. It would be in everyones best interest to devise a standard way of doing this, not just for a speciffic case but as a general resource (yes I am aware this is not easy!). If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the current licence the contribution has to be free. May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. Also, if we are talking about the resultant official distribution still being SMSQ, since SMSQ is (c)TT, so is every subsequent version. Anyone can write a functionally equivalent system, not call it SMSQ and have it be (c) whoever. It's been done with Minerve and there were no problems there. Cases where you want to retain (c) should be handled by only submitting the absolutely necessary part as an extension to the OS core (like in the case of platform support, see above). The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's persistence in the core, for a very good reason: no-ones contribution is 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or even completely replaced. There has to be a means to do 'garbage collecting'. The best way to insure that a contributed extension stays there, is to design it well, and in the best interest of everyone and not just a speciffic group. If someone wants to engage in conspiracy theories, thay may find more fertile ground for that by submitting them as scripts for 'The X files' (even though the series has ended) rather than clogging up this list. * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered for inclusion into the core. Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. The core should be general, the platform-speciffic add-ons may (and probably will) be associated with the 'manufacturer' of the platform are the responsibility of the said 'manufacturer'. By having a general core which 'everyone' needs, you guarantee it is available from multiple distributors, so chances of it getting lost are reduced. * Problem: a LOT of work needs to be done to SMSQ before it reaches that stage. This work is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in the long run. Under the licence, the source can be distributed as long as it's not charged for in any way. The distribution of binaries that is not free is rather simple to get around as a problem by distributing a make file, an assembler/compiler, and a means to run it. If you want to charge for it, you charge for the parts that are extending the OS (via make file at compile time or otherwise), the compiler and the OS it will run on. If you want to make it free, provide a free compiler and OS - both are available. Hey, it works for Linux... and there someone had to compile the first version on something that wasn't free!!! * Problem: distributing the source without physical media. This has to be carefully considered as for some platforms distributing as source may be the only viable way of distributing SMSQ. Distributing sources and binaries for developement purposes absolutely MUST be alowed by electronic means. Developement easily generates dozens of different binaries a day (or more!) and not using the fastest means to distribute them is equal to stopping all developement, period. Under the licence, nothing prevents anyone from rewriting the whole thing based on the source, and then doing anything you please with it. As long as you don't submit it to the registrar and it's not added to the official release, it is not covered by the licence. Support in exchange for paid binaries - there is nothing to say that every distributor should distribute or support all versions of precompiled binaries. The only thing that it says is that if you deliver a binary, you must pay 10 Euros to TT. You can sell it at cost and provide no support for it whatsoever. I think it should be in everyone's best interest to simply ignore the arguments about distributors providing bug fixes. The distributors only DISTRIBUTE bug fixes and act as an intermediary between their customers and the 'manufacturer' of whatever it is they are selling (sometimes this may be one and the same person, though!). This licence should in no way dictate what kind of support the distributor should give - if existing distributors act as a council when a new distributor is to be accepted, they can regulate the rules with some other document. What this licence should regulate is traceability of extensions to the OS to their original contributing authors. The registrar will, if something really happens with all this and things do take off, find himself overwhelmed with the task of actually having to know and understand intimately every nook and cranny of the SMSQ sources, in order to make decisions about it. This may mean that the 10 Euro may ultimately be going to the wrong person. Also, from this licence, it follows that TT, should he wish to contribute to the core, would have to do so under the same rules as everyone else! Nasta
